DSL-N :: Should DSL-N start moving forward?



Thanks for your input, Key.

Quote
I would prever an easy blue background with some color structure instead of having a real picture in the background.

That's a user issue. You can change the background easily to suit your needs. In DSL-4,

1. Right click and scroll to DFM for X11.
2. Select desktop-options.
3. Select "color" from the dialog near the top (EDIT: left) corner.
4. Set the color using the color tool.

In other versions of DSL, you can use wallpaper in the setup-desktop settings (it has a call for the same color tool if you want a solid color instead of wallpaper). Alternatively and regardless of which version, you can open a terminal and enter the following using whatever color you want:
Code Sample
bsetbg -solid colorname

where colorname (dodgerblue, skyblue2, etc.) is any of these supported by X:
http://www.imagemagick.org/script/color.php

Blues are okay. I prefer greys:
http://lucky13linux.wordpress.com/dsl-related-pages/dsl-40-screenshot/
Yes, thats clear.
Nevertheless, thanks again for the information.

I was only wondering, when I had a look to DSL-N 0.1 RC4 and found a real picture in the background.

It looks really nice, yes.
But a simpler picture gives with an easy color structure gives a better overview, a better contrast and a better readability.

This should have only been a small remark, as it is in the iso-image and therefore then on the standard live-cd.
On the usb memory stick or the harddisk, it can of course be changed afterwards.

In my opinion, DSL and DSL-N could differ as much as possible and required, but the design should be very similar to either DSL 3.x or DSL 4.x and I do not remember that there was a real picture somewhen in a standard DSL :)
Quote (lucky13 @ July 29 2007,15:36)
For starters:
Security. Puppy runs as root. DSL-N doesn't (not exclusively).

Bloat-free philosophy. Puppy is small on the CD. Take a look at its packages. Puppy's philosophy isn't to remain free of bloat. DSL-N's is.

Bloat-free philosophy: Maybe Puppy doesn't explicitly espouse 'bloat-free' as its philosophy, but I think it is also an important part of their objective.

I think that one of the main problems of Puppy is the difficulty of setting up a build environment:
With DSL, I 'debootstrap' Debian Sarge on a partition, and then install the same libraries as DSL with 'apt-get'. With Puppy, I don't think you can do the same unless you have the skills to do a 'Puppy-from-scratch' kind of thing. You probably need to be running  Puppy to compile software.
With DSL, I can play games and surf the web on my Debian Sid installation and still compile software in my free time by chroot'ing into the Sarge partition. I only reboot into DSL when I want to test extensions.

I think Puppy's dilemna is manpower - they need more people who can be familiar with the system - libraries and so on - and have hardware that's fast enough to compile GTK2 software full-time. Yet the complexity of GTK2, in general, drives people away. So the 'task' has gotten more complicated, but there are less people who are willing to do it. But, despite this, Mr. Kauler seems to me a very motivated developer. If he keeps improving Puppy's 'core' as time goes on, then I think more people will be interested in maintaining the packages. Then the level of quality will go up.

You said that Puppy reminds you more of Windows 95 than a proper Linux distribution - in this regard I totally agree. What I think is that Puppy resembles '95 not so much in the security problems as in the desktop experience - this I think is a positive boon rather than a harmful thing. Let's assume for argument's sake that it is very unlikely to get Linux infected with spyware and viruses - the 2 big killers - whether you run as root or not.  The remaining security risk is running as root itself - which I think deserves a debate in itself.
I have read this before: Slashdot | Sudo vs. Root.
There must be many other discussions about this controversial issue.

Strictly-opinion:
DSL-N will end up competing directly with Puppy on availability of software, and then, consequently, ease of use.
It is not that the ideas for DSL-N are bad. But in the end, I think both works have to serve their niche, and do it well.
It is that competition in these areas will be divisive. I feel DSL needs people and time on the 'small and simple = better' side, and Puppy needs people and time on the 'more and latest software = better' side.
" You said that Puppy reminds you more of Windows 95 than a proper Linux distribution - in this regard I totally agree ".

>> And this is one thing in Puppy I do not like.

Also computer development continues.
It would be a pity, if there are more and more computers in the future, where DSL can not be used on due to not supported hardware in result of an old Linux kernel.

DSL should expand its size limit maybe in reference to the available technology.
All the time (how many years?), it has been set to 50 MB.
Why not do 80 MB or something like this now?
I am sure Puppy can be underbidden with a 2.6.x kernel as well.

Probably the kernel 2.4.x has some other advantages to the kernel 2.6.x, than only its size and therefore it should and could be continued as well.
Nevertheless there should also be an up-to-date DSL version for the latest hardware.
I do not want to switch to Puppy :)
Quote
What I think is that Puppy resembles '95 not so much in the security problems as in the desktop experience - this I think is a positive boon rather than a harmful thing.

I don't. Users who want a similar desktop experience can use JWM and dfm like DSL 4 is using (dfm is much more like Windows than rox). I don't consider running as root a viable or reasonable compromise, and I can't advocate people who want a 2.6-based live CD to install to hard drive choose something like Puppy. People who presume that Linux is inherently safer than Windows are greatly mistaken, especially when they start from the same user=administrator baseline Windows 95 did. Windows 95 wasn't inherently unsafe because it had a registry, it was inherently unsafe because it was wide open by default.

SO IS PUPPY. SO IS DYNE. SO IS ANY OTHER DISTRO THAT ABUSES/MISUSES PERMISSIONS AND RUNS EXCLUSIVELY AS ROOT TO MAKE THINGS "EASIER" FOR USERS. IT ALSO MAKES THINGS EASIER FOR EXPLOITS TO THE WHOLE SYSTEM REMOTELY -- AS WAS THE CASE WITH WINDOWS pre-NT -- AND LOCALLY. THIS SHOULD NOT BE AN OPTION, AND THIS IS WHY PUPPY SHOULDN'T EVEN BE CONSIDERED "LINUX" OR CONSIDERED IN ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THE FUTURE OF DSL-N. DSL-N IS SAFER, IS A BETTER IMPLEMENTATION OF LINUX.

(Sorry for caps, but puppy:dsl-n is totally apples:oranges.)

Quote
Let's assume for argument's sake that it is very unlikely to get Linux infected with spyware and viruses - the 2 big killers

I'm not going to make that assumption, and I'm also not going to assume that running as root is as inherently safe as using sudo. It isn't. Running LOCALLY, on a non-networked computer, as root is relatively safe if you know what you're doing. Running on a network (internet) as root is NOT safe. You can dismiss it on the grounds that Puppy (or Dynebolic or any other CD that runs only as root and is installable) is read-only, but anyone able to exercise control of your system locally or remotely can mount any partition and do whatever he or she wants.

And with the proliferation of live CDs that run as root (puppy, dyne), it wouldn't be difficult for a server that's either run by unsavory people or has been compromised to take advantage of people using them (deleted fuller concept). Your worst nightmare then isn't a virus, it's someone getting a dump of your hard drive's contents, erasing it or your MBR, and/or even doing something that can potentially harm your hardware.

Another big difference between root and sudo: you can't tighten permissions on root. You can tighten them for other sudoers. I think you SHOULD. Using sudo shouldn't be indiscriminate or capricious, it should be thoughtful and methodical. I think it's wise to limit what applications -- particularly those that reach networks -- can do when used as a user with sudo privileges. For example:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/documents/firefox_for_paranoid_people

I wrote within the last couple weeks in another thread that I usually scrap sudo (if it's part of a default install) or don't install it at all (e.g., on a BSD install). I'm not a fan of it even though I agree it's a reasonable compromise, particularly where there's a need for more than one person to be able to make system-wide changes. It prevents the need to give root passwords to more than one person. It's also auditable. Etc.

Quote
- whether you run as root or not.  The remaining security risk is running as root itself - which I think deserves a debate in itself.

I think you're too dismissive of the risks and too permissive of puppy's sloth in the same regard.

EDIT: I don't mean for this to sound so harsh and it's not personal, but I think the issue is too important to treat lightly or to treat as "they do it this way" and "we do it this way." They do it wrong. It may not be a major problem right now, but the potential is there for widespread harm. I don't think developers should accept that as a trade-off. I don't think users should accept it, period.
Next Page...
original here.